3.
PARTICULAR ACT OF NEGLIGENCE
a. PROVINCES, CITIES, AND MUNICIPALITIES
Art. 2189. Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for
damages for the death of, or injuries suffered by, any person by
reason of the defective condition of roads, streets, bridges,
public buildings, and other public works under their control or
supervision. (n)
(City of Manila vs. Teotico)
Facts: On January 27, 1958, Teotico was at the corner of the
Old Luneta and P. Burgos Avenue, Manila, within a "loading and
unloading" zone, waiting for a jeepney. As he stepped down
from the curb to board the jeepney he hailed, and took a few
steps, he fell inside an uncovered and unlighted catch basin or
manhole on P. Burgos Avenue. Due to the fall, Teotico suffered
injuries. Teotico filed with the CFI Mla complaint against the City
which dismissed the same. On appeal, CA sentenced the City
of Manila to pay damages.
Issue: WON the City of Manila have control or supervision over
P. Burgos Ave making it responsible for the damages suffered
by Teotico.
Ruling: Decision affirmed.
In its answer to the complaint, the City, alleged that "the streets
aforementioned were and have been constantly kept in good
condition…and manholes thereof covered by the defendant City
and the officers concerned…" Thus, the City had, in effect,
admitted that P. Burgos Avenue was and is under its control and
supervision.
Under Article 2189 CC, it is not necessary for the liability therein
established to attach that the defective roads or streets belong
to the province, city or municipality from which responsibility is
exacted. What said article requires is that the province, city or
municipality have either "control or supervision" over said street
or road. Even if P. Burgos Avenue were, therefore, a national
highway, this circumstance would not necessarily detract from
the City's "control or supervision."
(Jimenez vs. City of Manila)
Facts
Petitioner Bernardino Jimenez bought bagoong in the Sta. Ana
Public Market on a rainy day. It was flooded by ankle-deep and
dirty rainwater. When petitioner turned around, he stepped on
an uncovered drainange opening, causing a 4-inch rusty nail to
penetrate his leg. Petitioner fell sick and was unable to supervise
his bus business for a long time. He sued the City of Manila and
Asiatic Integrated Corp. as administrator of the said public
market. The trial court sentenced the City of Manila and Asiatic
solidarily liable for damages. On appeal, the CA modified and
held that only Asiatic is liable. Hence this petition.
HELD—City of Manila liable under article 2189 of the Civil Code.
Argument
The City of Manila argues that it cannot be held liable because
under the Management and Operating Contract with Asiatic, the
latter assumed sole responsibility for damages which may be
suffered by third persons for any cause attributable to it.
The City of Manila also argues that under the Revised Charter
of Manila, it “shall not be liable or held for damages or injuries to
persons or property arising from the failure of the Mayor, the
Municipal Board, or any other City Officer, to enforce the
provisions of this chapter, or any other law or ordinance, or from
negligence of said Mayor, Municipal Board, or any other officers
while enforcing or attempting to enforce said provisions.”
Issue: Whether the City of Manila is liable for the injuries
suffered by the petitioner despite the contract and the Revised
Charter of Manila.
Held: Yes.
1. The Revised Charter of Manila establishes a general rule
regulating the liability of the City of Manila for "damages or injury
to persons or property arising from the failure of city officers" to
enforce the provisions of said Act, "or any other law or ordinance
or from negligence" of the City "Mayor, Municipal Board, or other
officers while enforcing or attempting to enforce said provisions."
On the other hand, Art. 2189 of the Civil Code provides that
“Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages
for the death of, or injuries suffered by any person by reason of
defective conditions of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings
and other public works under their control or supervision.”
The said article constitutes a particular prescription making
"provinces, cities and municipalities ... liable for damages for the
death of, or injury suffered by any person by reason" —
specifically — "of the defective condition of roads, streets,
bridges, public buildings, and other public works under their
control or supervision." In other words the Revised Charter of
Manila refers to liability arising from negligence, in general,
regardless of the object, thereof, while Article 2189 of the Civil
Code governs liability due to "defective streets, public buildings
and other public works" in particular and is therefore decisive on
this specific case.
Under article 2189, it is not necessary for the liability therein
established to attach, that the defective public works belong to
the province, city or municipality from which responsibility is
exacted. What said article requires is that the province, city or
municipality has either "control or supervision" over the public
building in question.
2. The City of Manila, per the contract, remained in control of
Asiatic, hence the former must be held liable for petitioner’s
injuries.
The fact of supervision and control of the City over subject public
market was admitted by Mayor Ramon Bagatsing in his letter to
Secretary of Finance Cesar Virata.
In fact, the City of Manila employed a market master for the Sta.
Ana Public Market whose primary duty is to take direct
supervision and control of that particular market, more
specifically, to check the safety of the place for the public.
3. On defense:
“As a defense against liability on the basis of a quasi-
delict, one must have exercised the diligence of a good father of
a family. (Art. 1173 of the Civil Code).
 “There is no argument that it is the duty of the City of
Manila to exercise reasonable care to keep the public market
reasonably safe for people frequenting the place for their
marketing needs.
“While it may be conceded that the fulfillment of such
duties is extremely difficult during storms and floods, it must
however, be admitted that ordinary precautions could have been
taken during good weather to minimize the dangers to life and
limb under those difficult circumstances.
“For instance, the drainage hole could have been
placed under the stalls instead of on the passage ways. Even
more important is the fact, that the City should have seen to it
that the openings were covered. Sadly, the evidence indicates
that long before petitioner fell into the opening, it was already
uncovered, and five (5) months after the incident happened, the
opening was still uncovered. Moreover, while there are findings
that during floods the vendors remove the iron grills to hasten
the flow of water, there is no showing that such practice has ever
been prohibited, much less penalized by the City of Manila.
Neither was it shown that any sign had been placed thereabouts
to warn passersby of the impending danger.
“To recapitulate, it appears evident that the City of
Manila is likewise liable for damages under Article 2189 of the
Civil Code, respondent City having retained control and
supervision over the Sta. Ana Public Market and as tortfeasor
under Article 2176 of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts.
“Petitioner had the right to assume that there were no
openings in the middle of the passageways and if any, that they
were adequately covered. Had the opening been covered,
petitioner could not have fallen into it. Thus the negligence of
the City of Manila is the proximate cause of the injury suffered,
the City is therefore liable for the injury suffered by the petitioner.
“Respondent City of Manila and Asiatic Integrated
Corporation being joint tortfeasors are solidarily liable under
Article 2194 of the Civil Code.”
(Municipality of San Juan vs. CA)
MWSS entered into a contract for water service connections with
KC Waterworks System Construction ("KC"). Part of this project
was to excavate a portion of the corner of M. Paterno and
Santolan Road in San Juan (a national road). By the end of the
day, only ¾ of the job was finished. Between 10:00 to 11:00 PM
that same day, Priscilla Chan was driving her car with a speed
of 30 KPH on the right side of Santolan Road, towards
Pinaglabanan, San Juan. With her in the car was private
respondent Asst. City Prosec. Laura Biglang-awa. It was raining,
and the road was flooded. Suddenly, the left front wheel of the
car fell on a manhole which the KC workers excavated earlier.
Biglang-awa fractured her humerus (bone extending from
shoulder to elbow) on her right arm due to this. Hence, she filed
before the RTC a complaint for damages against MWSS, KC,
the Municipality of San Juan as well as a number of San Juan
municipal officials. The RTC ruled in favor of Biglang-awa and
held MWSS and the Municipality of San Juan solidarily liable to
her. On appeal, such decision was upheld by the CA and the
SC.
ISSUE: WON petitioner Municipality of San Juan is liable for the
injury sustained by Biglang-awa. – YES, SAN JUAN IS LIABLE.
a. [SAN JUAN] San Juan tried to defend itself by citing
Section 149(1)(z) of BP 337 (the LGC of 1983) and Section
8, Ordinance 82-01.
i. Using Sec. 149, San Juan tried arguing that it is only
responsible for municipal roads, Santolan, being a
national road is therefore beyond its responsibility.
ii. San Juan also contended that the aforesaid ordinance,
only the project engineer of KC and MWSS can be held
liable for the same accident.
b. [SC] San Juan is liable. Article 2189 of the Civil Code states
that it is sufficient that a province, city or municipality has
control of a road for it to be liable for torts caused by the
same.
i. San Juan's argument that per Section 149 of LGC 1983
it has only control or supervision over municipal roads
is erroneous. Nowhere in this section is its control or
supervision modified by the term "municipal road".
Neither can it be inferred that the same provision only
applies to activities to be performed in municipal roads.
ii. The municipality's liability for injuries caused by its
failure to regulate the drilling and excavation of the
ground for the laying of gas, water, sewer, and other
pipes, attaches regardless of whether the drilling or
excavation is made on a national or municipal road, for
as long as the same is within its territorial jurisdiction.
iii. San Juan's use of Section 8 of Ordinance 82-01 also
does not hold water. Such Ordinance makes the
excavator liable for injury or death or damages caused
by non-completion of works or failure to implement
precautionary measures. However, nowhere in said
Ordinance does it state that municipalities in Metro
Manila are exempt from liabilities caused by their own
negligent acts. Therefore, nothing prevents the
municipality from being liable by the application of
other laws.
b. OWNER OF MOTOR VEHICLE
Art. 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable
with his driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle, could have,
by the use of the due diligence, prevented the misfortune. It is
disputably presumed that a driver was negligent, if he had been
found guilty or reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at
least twice within the next preceding two months.
If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provisions of Article
2180 are applicable. (n)
(Caedo vs. Yu Khe Thai)
(Gelisan vs Alday)
(Gaid vs. People)
c. PROPRIETOR/OWNER OF BUILDING OR
STRUCTURE OR THING
Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is
demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also
for those of persons for whom one is responsible.
xxxxx
The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are
likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in
the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or
on the occasion of their functions.
Art. 2190. The proprietor of a building or structure is responsible
for the damages resulting from its total or partial collapse, if it
should be due to the lack of necessary repairs. (1907)
Art. 2191. Proprietors shall also be responsible for damages
caused:
(1) By the explosion of machinery which has not been taken care
of with due diligence, and the inflammation of explosive
substances which have not been kept in a safe and adequate
place;
(2) By excessive smoke, which may be harmful to persons or
property;
(3) By the falling of trees situated at or near highways or lanes,
if not caused by force majeure;
(4) By emanations from tubes, canals, sewers or deposits of
infectious matter, constructed without precautions suitable to the
place. (1908)
Art. 2192. If damage referred to in the two preceding articles
should be the result of any defect in the construction mentioned
in Article 1723, the third person suffering damages may proceed
only against the engineer or architect or contractor in
accordance with said article, within the period therein fixed.
(1909)
Art. 2193. The head of a family that lives in a building or a part
thereof, is responsible for damages caused by things thrown or
falling from the same. (1910)
Art. 1170. Those who in the performance of their obligations are
guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in any
manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages.
(1101)
(US vs. Zabala)
(YHT Realty Corporation vs. CA)
d. HEAD OF FAMILY
Art. 2193. The head of a family that lives in a building or a part
thereof, is responsible for damages caused by things thrown or
falling from the same. (1910)
e. ATTORNEYS
(90 ALR4th 1033)
(Isaac vs. Mendoza)
f. EMPLOYERS
(Cang vs. Cullen)
g. DOCTORS
(Bondoc vs. Mantala)
B. GOOD FATHER OF A FAMILY OR REASONABLE
PRUDENT MAN
C. GENERAL STANDARD OF CARE (meaning)
1. NCC, ART. 1173
Art. 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the
omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of the
obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the
persons, of the time and of the place. When negligence shows
bad faith, the provisions of Articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph
2, shall apply.
If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to be
observed in the performance, that which is expected of a good
father of a family shall be required. (1104a)
(Wright vs. Manila Electric Railroad)
(Lilius vs. Manila Railroad Company)
(Arada vs. CA)
(Cruz vs. CA)
(Canlas vs Asian Savings Bank)
(Anonuevo vs. CA)
What are the attributes of a “REASONABLE PERSON”
The “Captain of the Ship Doctrine”
(Ramos vs. CA)
2. EMERGENCY RULE OR SUDDEN PERIL DOCTRINE
(Marikina Autoline Transport Corporation vs. People)
3. FACTORS AFFECTING ITS APPLICATION
(57A Am Jur 2d, Sec 900)